[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180806152354.GC9888@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:23:54 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Peter Enderborg <peter.enderborg@...y.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and
IO
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 07:07:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 11:19:57AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > +static bool psi_update_stats(struct psi_group *group)
> > +{
> > + u64 deltas[NR_PSI_STATES - 1] = { 0, };
> > + unsigned long missed_periods = 0;
> > + unsigned long nonidle_total = 0;
> > + u64 now, expires, period;
> > + int cpu;
> > + int s;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&group->stat_lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Collect the per-cpu time buckets and average them into a
> > + * single time sample that is normalized to wallclock time.
> > + *
> > + * For averaging, each CPU is weighted by its non-idle time in
> > + * the sampling period. This eliminates artifacts from uneven
> > + * loading, or even entirely idle CPUs.
> > + *
> > + * We don't need to synchronize against CPU hotplugging. If we
> > + * see a CPU that's online and has samples, we incorporate it.
> > + */
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>
> I'm still puzzled by this.. for 99% of the machines online == possible.
> Why not always iterate possible and leave it at that? This is hardly a
> fast path.
Hmm, you're right, that makes things much simpler. I guess I'm mostly
worried about the 1% where this significantly differs, but it looks
like we're smarter than simply doing CONFIG_NR_CPUS for the possible
map, and we can easily stomach a bit of discrepancy in this path.
I'll change that to possible and delete/update the third paragraph.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists